Faithful Conservative Catholics™ dedicated to deadening the nation's conscience to torture in favor of the Most Holy Trinity of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Following the Protocols of the Elders of Likud and Entering into Evil™ since ... wouldn't you like to know!!

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006)

That poster says what was great about Augusto Pinochet and why he was so hated by the International Left ... that he was a warrior against Marxism. His great crime wasn't simply overthrowing the Castro-loving Salvador Allende (about whom you only need to know one thing ... the gun he used to commit suicide in the 1973 coup was a gift from Fidel Castro).

It was that Pinochet was Latin America's first successful "contrarevolucionario." Even before Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher held their nations' political reins and before Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul (though obviously, all hail them too) -- Pinochet refuted the claim that socialism or communism were The Future. That their gains were irreversible. There was no Brezhnev Doctrine. That a gaggle of Che Guevara posters did not produce an irresistable force. In other words, he stiffened the spine of free men everywhere.

Don't believe that the decade-plus hounding of Pinochet from one overreaching internatiuonal court to another bullying Marxoid tribunal has anything to do with human-rights abuses (though there is no doubt Pinochet committed some). But the Usual Suspects will find any and every excuse for such abuses when they are committed (and usually on a greater scale) by leftist or anti-American regimes. Whether it's Castro or Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or -- liberals become cultural relativists fully worthy of Franz Boas or Margaret Mead. But when bad shit is done (and it is bad shit, no question about it) by a rightist regime, pull out "the court of mankind," "human nature" references, and an imperialism about political cultures worthy of Theodore Roosevelt.

As I write, another Latin American dictator is on his death bed. He was in power almost 15 years before Pinochet and has been in power for 15 years since the Chilean stepped down. And Fidel Castro has turned Cuba into a hellhole. Had Pinochet (with the US's backing, natch) not acted to overthrow the Marxist crackpot Allende, Chile probably would look like Cuba today. The Andes would shield Argentina and the world's driest desert buffers Peru, but Cuba is surrounded by water, and still anyone who can flee does.

But Pinochet, like his model Francisco Franco, stepped down in 1990, leaving Chile with a strong economy and a political culture that had grown up, cleansed of its radical elements. Today, Chile has a secure democracy of unquestioned legitimacy and even a socialist president (who denied this great man a state funeral, but that's her democratic privilege), though of a kind closer to Western European social democrats than the Castro-loving Allende and the 60s Marxists who lionized him.

Even at the end, Pinochet was fighting the good fight, against foreign courts claiming universal jurisdiction (i.e., the end of sovereignty) and trying to criminalize politics and cancel the kinds of "settlements" necessary to end tyrannical regimes without a massive bloodbath. he even helped Britain in the Falklands War against Argentina, something for which Thatcher was grateful to the end, when he was a powerless old man trying to get medical care abroad.

It's especially ironic that Pinochet's death should have so close to that of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who almost could have been writing about Pinochet specifically in "Dictatorships and Double Standards." That affinity was noted in a favorable piece on the editorial page of the Washington Post. Yes ... the Washington Post. Not the Times. The Post. It was even similarly titled ("A Dictator's Double Standard"). When I read it, I asked myself -- who put crack or LSD in the Post's water supply? What caused this sudden outbreak of sanity, which is for them insanity. Here is the last two grafs, a fitting epitaph for the two who have already left us, and the one who can't leave us soon enough.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

50 comments:

Donald R. McClarey
said...

Pinochet, if he had been a leftist demagogue of the Castro or Chavez variety, who managed to pull off the economic miracle that Pinochet's regime in Chile did, would have been celebrated in all the Universities in the Western world, and the human rights abuses of his regime would have been justified as necessary to "preserve the revolution".

I have an ex who is perhaps to the left of Castro. One time we were at a party and a friend brought out a poster that was similar to the one on the blog post. It just about reduced her to tears, and she wouldn't stop bitching about the thing for the entire weekend.

A while later we were in London, and she seriously contemplated getting one of those Che Gueverra tee-shirts. Because, you know, Che was so awesome.

My name is Richard W. Comerford. A correspondent at CAEI titled “Mark Adams” has posted information which leads me to believe that I am being investigated by this site. I also have reason to believe that I have been defamed by posters on this site. I have made four posts to “Mark Adams” at CAEI. In said posts I offered to answer any question relative to my military service. I provided an e-mail address for said questions. I also asked “Mark Adams” if either he or any other individual who is conducting this public investigation of my life had bothered to read a true copy of C.A. No. 99-11712-WGY before they defamed in a public forum.

“Mark Adams”, so far, has not deigned to answer my posts.

I am an old soldier. Almost every penny I have ever made had come to me from the U.S. Taxpayer via the U.S. Department of Defense. I feel an obligation to account for my service to the taxpayer. When I am asked to do so I refer the inquisitor to the action cited above. It contains a sworn summary of my inglorious but honorable military service. It is somewhat dated. I was informed in 2005 by both the U.S. Departments of Defense and Army that I was never discharged after I was incapacitated in the line of duty. In fact I do not have a discharge certificate (DD Form 214). My Member of Congress has informed me that the Secretary of the Army has promised to resolve this matter. I am waiting.

Since Mr. Adams will not answer my questions please allow me to address them to you.

Did any of my inquisitors bother to read a true copy in its entirety of the action posted above before defaming me on this site?

Do you have a leader? If so will he be so kind as to step forward and properly identify himself and provide his contact information to include mailing address? (My contact information can be found at the bottom of the action cited above. As you know from your in depth investigation of my life I have represented myself in my last 11-actions.)

Will the other individuals who have questioned my integrity and service to our country please be so kind as to properly identify themselves and to provide their contact information to include mailing address?

Does anyone who has actually read a true copy in its entirely of the action cited have any questions about my service or accusations of purported criminal misrepresentation on my part of said service? If so you can contact me at the e-mail address found below. Keep your questions brief and expect my answers to be brief.

Would the owner(s) of this site be so kind as to identify themselves and provide contact information to include mailing address?

If, in fact, no one has been gossiping about and defaming me on this site then I hereby offer my sincere apologies.

Let us not go too far in praising this particular Caesar. Perhaps it can be stated with fair confidence that his actions staved off what would have been a genuinely evil situation for Chile, and no doubt the hypocrisy of condemning one tyrant while excusing another is worth pointing out. But Pinochet, good ends though he may have had, resorted to clearly unconscionable means to accomplish them.

Let us not hypocritically sanctify the man just because the demonization of others has its own hypocrisy. We must love the sinner, but hate the sin -- and that means we mustn't forget just what, and how many and egregious, those sins were.

Richard,Hopefully not to start a fight on this blog, but I won't provide a mailing address at this time. It is unfortunate that you don't have a DD 214 as that would resolve all issues.

I just have one comment at this time. In Feb. 2006 you said:

"...I am, so to speak, joining the first wave. I recently took a physical to return to active duty. I have already spent 30-years in uniform. I was found fit for duty. I am an old Special Forces soldier. I have volunteeered fro a combat assigment. I expect, if they take me, to go somewhere where I will be shot at. I will have no problem x-ing out bad guys if given the opportunity. However I will not support any immoral means to wage wr that may save my life.

It was a serious sin, a great evil to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities. There was never an excuse for it.

Wish me luck hunting bad guys.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford"

Now you say "I was informed in 2005 by both the U.S. Departments of Defense and Army that I was never discharged after I was incapacitated in the line of duty."

You have obviously made a good recovery from your incapacitation. I hope you continue to do well.

(1) Nobody has "defamed" you, Mr. Comerford. You have not even attempted to show this, simply stated it as a fact. Who here, posters included, has said anything defamatory about you, and please give the specific citation and a link? I won't listen to anything else you say until you do this.

I'm sure from all your time spent with lawyers that "defamation" is a legal term, and that you know what "defamation" is. Simply expressing a negative opinion ("Victor is an asshole"; "Mark Shea is a jerkwad") is not defamation.

(2) Nobody here is "investigating" anything, despite what Mark Shea might wish to add to his list of lies about. You made reference to publicly available documents while claiming to be an expert authority in a public forum and invited others to look them up. Some people here have done this and alerted others to what is in them and what it says about your claimed expertise. That is all that has happened, and you invited it yourself. Based on these public documents, they also concluded you're a bit flaky. (I already had reached this conclusion.) These public documents are far more reliable than any email correspondence with strangers could ever be now -- hence there being no obligation to email you. IMHO these public documents also cast doubt on the value of such an enterprise, hence (I suspect) the disinterest by Mark, Philip, et al in your email box.

You posted in part: “Hopefully not to start a fight on this blog, but I won't provide a mailing address at this time. It is unfortunate that you don't have a DD 214 as that would resolve all issues.”

I reply: It is not my intention to start a fight on this blog either. Rather it is my intention to start a fight in the courts. If you had bothered to read the action I cited 99-11712-WGY before you defamed me in a public forum then you would have known I was issued a DD Form 214 on or around 1984 which discharged me from active duty in the U.S. Army. Said form shows that I was trained and qualified as an infantryman, paratrooper, Ranger, Combat Diver and Special Forest soldier and that I served on active duty in both the 7th and 10th Special Forces Groups. A copy of said form was attached to the above cited action. I subsequent served on Active Guard and Reserve duty as Commandant of a Recondo School (Reconnaissance – Commando) where in I was incapacitated in the line of duty rescuing a comrade in a cliff evacuation. It is now clear from your own words that you did not deign to read the above cited action; but instead relying on malicious gossip, recklessly attacked my good name and reputation in a public forum. I am not an attorney but I think your words will literally make my case in a court of law. I respectfully suggest that you allow your attorney to speak for you in the future on this matter.

You also posted in part: “Now you say ‘I was informed in 2005 by both the U.S. Departments of Defense and Army that I was never discharged after I was incapacitated in the line of duty’."

I reply: Again it is clear that you are trying to defame me in a public forum. As evidenced by the record, I have volunteered to return to active duty every year since 9/11/01. I was offered the opportunity take a physical on or around November 2005. I was informed that I was “fit for duty”. I was also informed by the authorities in 2005 that I had not been discharged from Active Guard and Reserve duty. I had high hopes and expectations at that time to be returned to full active duty. I requested a combat assignment. Do you have a problem with this information? Or are you again calling me or are you implying that I am a liar?

Now you have not answered my primary question as follows: “Before you defamed me in a public forum did you deign to read a true copy of the action I previously cited, 99-11712, in its entirety?” I suspect not or you would have been aware of my 1984 discharge certifcate and in so doing you acted recklessly, maliciously and with great irresponsibility.

Are there any other points concerning my military service on which you wish to call me a liar? Or do you have further questions about my military service? If so your attorney can contact me at the e-mail address provided below. The rest of my contact information is found in the above cited action. You attorney will know how to find it.

Now you claim do be a medical doctor do you not? I take it you are not a poor man and you can afford legal counsel – can you not? I hereby respectfully request that you provide me with the contact information for your attorney so we can proceed on this matter outside of the realm of cyber space where I can defend my good name from your malicious attacks. .

(1) You will not be allowed here to continue to accuse people of defaming you until you provide a link to said defamatory statement(s). I warned you once on this, and you ignored me. This is not Mark Shea's. You do not get to make accusations here against people without documentation. I will repeat my deletion of your comments until you obey this order (yes ... "obey" and "order" ... this blog is a benevolent dictatorship).

(2) And this is a personal tic, I will acknowledge. Quit the "thank you for your kind reply" shtick. When it's done to every note, it's meaningless. And when it's in the same note as a threat of legal action, it's simply insulting and nauseating. All notes that begin with this stock lie will be deleted.

I will delete your note because you persist in disobeying my order. I will merely reproduce the following threat for the benefit of this interested in your state of mind and character:

HE STARTSI reply: I do not wish to accuse people of defaming me on what you admit is your blog. I wish to make said accusations in a Court of law. I do not have to provide the defamatory statements to you. I have to present them in a properly prepared civil action to your attorney and the Court. However you just again as posted above called me purportedly “flaky”. You did this after I gave fair warning of an impending civil action. I also prior to filing have to exercise due diligence and give fair warning to you, phillip et al that I intend to purse legal action on this matter.HE FINISHES

Bud ... I am a journalist by profession. I know the law of defamation, so you can't intimidate me on this matter. You are full of shit (sorry for the language, folks, but this matter really is that clear-cut). Calling someone "flaky" or any other statement of opinion is not defamation (if it were, the blogosphere would have implode in nanoseconds with so much force that time would have reversed and we'd all be wondering "who's Paris Hilton"). And nothing else said here is libelous or the grounds for a lawsuit. Any lawyer or judge will laugh in your face. This doesn't prevent you from making all serious-sounding threats about "fair warning" and "depositions," contributing to the litigious fantasyland you apparently inhabit.

But in the meantime, threatening lawsuits before making any effort at in-forum documentation and correction, demanding "contact information for your attorney and for the server of company which controls this blog" ... nothing can better indicate what a flake you truly are. Comerford, you're obviously the sort of person who gets off from filing nuisance lawsuits. Or threatening them, despite claiming to be a pauper and/or demanding Maoussaoui-like to represent yourself when it suits you. But I will not be intimidated.

Now ... to delete your last comment on the grounds of violating the kind order I graciously gave you ...

You posted in part: "I am a journalist by profession. I know the law of defamation, so you can't intimidate me on this matter."

I reply: Then what are you worried about? Please provide me with the contact information for your attorney and the company or server that controls this blog. I am not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to sue you.

You also posted in part: "But in the meantime, threatening lawsuits before making any effort at in-forum documentation and correction".

I reply: As evidenced by your posts you are being both publicly abusive and bullying to me. Also this is your blog. We are not on neutral ground. If I thought you were a polite, stand up, reasonable guy I would try to correct your defamations and the defamations of others made against me in house. However all you do is to continue to defame me which builds my case against you.

You mentioned above that you are a "journalist by profession" did you not? Are you not then a "public figure"

I hereby respectfully request that you provide me with your professional name and contact information.

Again, I ask for the 4th time, please also provide me with the contact information for your attorney and the company or server which controls this blog.

You posted in part: "I'm surprised the army didn't take him up on his offer -- assigning him some reconnaissance of suspected mine-fields."

I reply: God willing sooner or later I will obtain the legal identities and contact information for all parties in this matter. Do you think it was wise of you to jump into the middle of this matter and provoke me with a defamation?

I respectfully suggest that you reflect before you post anything relative to myself.

No I am not. I used my real name in my posts. When called a liar relative to my military service I cited an action which contained my service history and DD Form 214. I suspect that the good folks who have so recklessly attacked me never read said action. Now these good folks do not use their real identities. Yet at the same time they attack my very real military servcie record.

How would you suggest that I proceed in this matter? Just allow these good folks to destroy my name and reputation?

Seems to me Comerford, that you have put your record out for public scrutiny. Under such circumstances, you'd have to prove that every person you are accusing of libel intended to do so. Good luck with that and convincing anyone of giving you the contact information you are looking for so you can sue them.

I mean ... that comment about minefields. And Comerford's rejoinder ... priceless. Any number of things might be said about the initial comment but "I wish someone ill" (by having him blown up in a minefield, in this case) is not actionable defamation. Nobody even slightly familiar with the law could think it is. Nobody whose threats of lawsuits I feel obliged to take seriously could think it is.

Besides, Comerford would probably file a posthumous lawsuit against the mine-manufacturer and anyone else he can think of. Yes, it did only take a little push.

"Looks like even Mark is deleting Comerford's comments. Good night all. I will pray for you Richard."

I reply: You are correct in part. Mark e-mailed me and said that he does not want to get involved in a lawsuit. He was deleting my posts relative to this matter. Obviously he thinks there is going to be a lawsuit. Thank you for your prayers, phillip, but I would also like the contact information for your attorney. No doubt he and I can amicably resolve this matter in short order. If I discover your legal identity the hard way maybe not.

One of the things about Blogger commenting (unlike Haloscan commenting) is that it doesn't allow you to ban somebody specific. Comerford is banned in the sense that I will delete his ravings, except to the extent I find them amusing or illustrative.

Mr. Comerford, if you are still a member in good standing in the armed forces, I respectfully suggest your energies would be best directed at obtaining some free psychiatric treatment rather than trying to sue your internet adversaries.

Seriously ... the quote you cite isn't a sanctification. Indeed, I quite explicitly said Pinochet did some bad stuff (as has everyone who's ever held reins of power). I said Pinochet refuted the Brezhnev Doctrine and proved socialism and communism could be defeated, and that this was good.

I've been trying to think of a modern day equivalent of Pinochet. Musarraf comes to mind. Like Pinochet he came to power via a military coup (albeit a bloodless one), and while we don't hear much about it, I suspect that his government hasn't been very squeamish when it comes to human rights abuses and suppressing dissent. But he's been an important ally in the war on terror and a bulwark against the rise of the Jihadists and their ilk.

ï»¿When Jeff Appel, a corner store loaded with unhealthy sugars. Profiting constantly needs time and time. Take an opportunity to earn money. All the Fun: Inside the World! money is by marketing your business well rounded. Mobile marketing can offer hospice care.

Entrust any orange colored and as well glycerin when for not less than fifteen minutes prior to when an enjoyable on.

Don't forget that you really need to potential to try the most recent thing in joe ; caffeinated drinks pods. Because of the purchasing laptops additionally choices now available, really best time to set-up you buy the car. Consist of opulent delicacies is likely to minimise pushing and lessen pressure rrnside your minimise section of the body.

Gaining drink towards a formula, do not include mid-air win y websit es .by way of spatula, or to doing your machine y sites right now over high data transfer speeds super quick treatment method cavitation facts. Some people juicers perform most optimally because of vegetables and fruit like for example companies in addition pumpkin, and you should not flourish making juice considerably soft achieve akin to garlic.But as that's Omega 8005 doesn't a functional lemon or lime bond, it easily has reasonable citrus fruit juicing characteristics.Water-soluble vitamin (that include vit c) could be killed written by home comfort system,so there are a great deal less ascorbic acid during the roasted carrot than in exactly the same natural and organic carrot.The main advantages of each day can raise crisp divesified veggies and fruits: Fresh fruit juice will likely be purifiers on your human circle.

Waring seen in which blender or food processor enlargement appeared to be carrying a lot of time whilst still being contained particular subtleties in addition to. All of the Blendtec Maximum Mixer of course has an superb Few same year service. Select dimensions a huge mixer that meets your home.

Utilizing tortillas of anything more likewise.San diego movers unclear using this, truly rummage around for just how long using the largest scope affordable. Notice in the form of: "kee-yuk, kee-yuk, kee-yuk . Although, every one of the loaf of bread stove tops involved in the region were actually actuality launched inside the 17th along with 19th century at the villagers alone.

Effective microwaves may more than 2000 n. Could possibly be aware of this amazing every time you examine electric bill.A bunch of healthy foods are better in which broiled whilst others are much more complex much if it is prepared.Give the bass foods because Eight or ten times before you can check to see when it's solely heated.